Sex Sells Sadly

http://www.bonkersinstitute.org/medshow/invegaskin.html

I love this ad. It really could be for anything: A movie, moisturizer, cosmetic surgery, a PETA ad, a Fiest album cover, an ill-advised silly putty promotion, an atypical antipsychotic, anything. It’s sexy in its own twisted way, and sex sells. It got my attention enough to write about it. The ad in question is actually for the atypical antipsychotic INVEGA.

At first I thought it was for the general public, which might account for the naked-woman oriented theme (as if that makes it much better), but it’s actually from a UK magazine called ‘Doctor.’ No data or other info is featured prominently in the ad, although there is the usual ‘safe and effective’ language. Unfortunately medical ads still disproportionately feature male doctors and female patients and senior staff at most medical institutions are disproportionately male. Doctors are vulnerable to the same biases as the general public. The fact that is sort of an ad is targeted at doctors should be evidence that at the very least the drug company believes that. Part of the importance of standards in drug advertising is also to prevent precieved problems in biased perscribing, and this ad doesn't do anything to give people confidence in their doctor's perscribing habits.

It appeared in 2007 and some doctors complained to the PMCPA, a UK organization which sets prescription medicine advertising standards, who promptly said that it was perfectly OK. You can’t read most of the text in the ad, although I’m sure it’s very tasteful and informative, but the tag line in “For the person within” seems like little more than a fig leaf. Quoth that companies defense of the ad:

The woman was not depicted clothed since an essential element of the concept was of ‘shedding skin’ to reveal ‘the person within’. This image was not designed to be in any way sexual in nature and Janssen-Cilag was convinced that most health professionals would not find the image offensive or sexual in nature.

(http://www.pmcpa.org.uk/files/2047%20Nov%202007.pdf)

The standards board agreed; apparently it’s just my sick mind leading me to think the ad is offensive and/or sexual in nature. Maybe the good people at Janssen-Cilag have something for that.

He's a bachelor, She's a crazy cat lady

I choose to focus on the article that shows the Single unhappy unmarried stereotype.

http://www.bonkersinstitute.org/medshow/femsingle.html

Okay so today we look at this article and can't help but laugh, albeit nervously, at what this seems to represent. Here we have a case of not biological or home environment causing disease but an actual institution of society (marriage) or the lack therof causing a disease to be diagnosed. Marriage is such a rediculous topic to use as a way to diagnose mental illness and this may seem obvious but studies have actually come out now proving how marriage actually benefits the mental health of men at the cost of a woman's mental health in later life, that is to say that men who are not married have a correlation with suffering higher rates of depression, anxiety, and other such treatable mental conditions than do women who remain unmarried on top of this most of the health benefits that are claimed to be provided by marriage are shown to only occur in favor of men. So the question becomes then ,"Why as a society are we pushing women to get married through the use of chastity balls, purity rings, and stigmatization of being single over 30."

Upon looking at the first of these events what we have is the charity ball. A sanctioned event where young men pledge that they will not defile the purity of another man's future wife. The disturbing thing about this trend however is that it's not about keeping men pure, it's about not tainting women. It would seem that logically if you cared about purity of youth you would be concerned with both male and female constituents of the population but this slant towards "safe guarding" the virginity of women is so skewed in all of these events that you can't help but see the double standard of when young men have sex they are "lucky" and when young women have sex they were either "tricked" by some unsavory man/woman or she is deemed a slut, enter the virgin whore complex we see in modern society.

So how to fix this? Well for starters lets take a good hard look at how we evaluate and judge people in society. Some of society's standards are there for a reason, it's generally frowned upon to lie, steal, or kill howver other equally respected ideas in society could do with some changing such as normative behavior of the genders. Why can't a woman be a player or stud, if she is considered promiscuous we call her a slut, skank, homewrecker, and several other horrible names but we simoultaneously also praise men for carrying on the same behavior (insert Tiger Woods reference here) and by creating this gender divide in behavior we create the possibility of creating a problem with people when in reality it is our PERCEPTION of the person that is truly the problem. In closing these companies who market solutions to our problems can only do so if they can convince you there is something fundamentally wrong with you, don't be so eager to believe the hype.

Pop/Soda-America, and you.

http://www.bonkersinstitute.org/medshow/5pepsi.html

Have you ever been plagued by a nasty flu? Bed-ridden with a seasonal cold?
The answer is obvious, PEPSI, dude. Is a fantastical effervescent delight that "is light, never too sweet." This was an obviously ridiculous remedy to be so vaguely presented as Rx: Pepsi ad libitum, but I guess I could see the appeal when it does occasionally help with stomach ailments.

I found this to be an interesting concept long ago, when I saw Christopher Walken heating up Dr Pepper in the movie "Blast From The Past." Not a fantastic movie, but I'm a huge Walken fan so I've seen it once or twice. Anyway, after watching the movie I had to try it, turns out it's not that bad at all, but the question is, is there any medicinal value to it?---I'm aware of how obvious it seems Dr Pepper is not a healthy alternative to anything, and just to clear the air, I don't even drink pop, but apparently the incorporation of ginger into so many popular soft-drinks has instilled this little fallacy into more minds than mine...seen here.

After doing a little research, I found out that all purpose "soda" was originally concocted up by small town pharmacists, and was packaged as a medicinal tonic, and Dr Pepper is named after Dr. Charles T. Pepper, an 1855 graduate of the University of Virginia Medical School who lived in Rural Retreat, Virginia in the late 1800s.

---Beyond that, I think the most miraculous thing about the stuff is how firmly imprinted it is in our society. Can you imagine when the aliens come and we serve them our traditional beverage? It reminds me of an episode of Bear Gryllis, where he was offered up a hot pot of corn liquor by the Brunka tribes of Costa Rica.

This ad was one of the few that didn't boast an impossible medical remedy, it simply presented Pepsi as an Rx. So for that ambiguity I can't get too upset, but it is interesting to see what some people truly care about...for instance this guy.

I think the fight against POP will be more and more prevalent with the steady rise in diabetes in America, and plenty of sites like this will pop up..(who knew the healthy alternative to pop could be...just water!?)

Shire US inc. …your ADHD Support Company

http://www.bonkersinstitute.org/medshow/femadhd.html

These advertisements by Shire US Inc. boast the connection between depression, divorce and ADHD in adults. The first ad claims adults with ADHD are nearly two times more likely to have been divorced which is backed up by one study. The results are from a survey comparing 500 ADHD adults and 501 non-ADHD adults. Nonetheless, there is no other evidence to back up the claim. This sole study is the only ‘proof’ the advertisers have to make such a bold statement about the connection between divorce and ADHD. The slogans ‘broken promises’ and ‘the consequences may be serious’ imply that ADHD is the main factor involved in a divorce and that one should go to their website for more information and to take a test for self-diagnosis. I wanted to take the test myself, but the website does not exist anymore and directs to http://adhdfraud.org/. Interesting name for a website.

The second ad claims that ADHD is found in 32% of adults with a depressive disorder. This is clearly aimed at a female demographic due to the pink background and a picture of a woman with her arms crossed. The message is clear: the connection between depression and ADHD is most commonly found in females. However, the one study cited is gender neutral with an age range of 18-44. Again, it is disappointing that a sole study was used to support a bold claim. At least the study surveyed 3199 adults as opposed to the other which surveyed 1001. The line ‘I’m depressed… Could it be ADHD?’ makes a very explicit implication that ADHD is the cause of depression in females. The ad later encourages its demographic to visit www.depressionandadhd.com which is another website that does not exist anymore. Huh. This is fascinating to me because these ads are only five years old.

Luckily, Dr. Bonkers has screencaps at http://www.bonkersinstitute.org/simpleadhd.html

Most of the screencaps from Shire US Inc. advertise various drugs which alter the balance of some brain chemicals. Right after the company admits that the cause of ADHD is unknown. Apparently this is all conjecture. Now my first impulse is to ridicule the lack of concrete evidence, but then I recall my former peers who took Adderall and other ADHD drugs as children. The changes in their behaviors were remarkable and I cannot believe it was solely due to a placebo effect. However, the language used in these screencaps and the two previous advertisements is deplorable. The company claims it does not have a hidden agenda, which is ludicrous given the extreme bias language found throughout the bold claims mentioned earlier. In one screencap, the company demeans the naysayers for the sole purpose of pressuring individuals to take their drugs. Moreover, they call their drugs ‘medicine’ to sound safe and friendly. How nice.

http://www.bonkersinstitute.org/medshow/femtryher.html

Oh dear oh dear oh dear, where to even begin with this one.

This ad reminds me of a quote on our "age of anxiety" text, quoted by a physician: "Get the the female tranquilized and get her out of here!"

The thing that gets me about this ad is the way the hypothetical patient is treated. "Try her on Stelazine". It treats the drug as if it were meant to make the therapists life easier, rather than actually help with whatever issue the client may be facing.

Also, this ad rather nicely ties in with the idea of women being trapped in situations where they are "supposed" to feel comfortable. "Excessive use of the telephone is often symptomatic of chronic neurotic anxiety". I'm sorry, what? This ad plays upon the tendency to demonize malcontent women. Imagine someone who must spend almost all her time in the house, the phone being her only reliable contact with the outside world. I think we're making a bit of a correlation/causation error here. Maybe if she wasn't stuck in a world where the phone was her only outlet for interpersonal communication, then gee I don't know, maybe she wouldn't be symptomatic of chronic neurotic anxiety?

This ad just screams the idea of women being an "inconvenience", hence the quote at the top of the page.

She may never marry...

This ad particularly disgusting to me.

http://www.bonkersinstitute.org/medshow/femsingle.html

First of all, it suggests that a woman must find companionship in a man in order to be happy. Being single or independent is apparently unacceptable and creates unhappiness. Not only must you marry, but you must marry young (35 is too old) and soon, and to a man. Jan is at a loss, she has low self-esteem, she is psychoneurotic. She is identified as an 'unmarried." I realize that this is the value and the norm of another time, but I am surprised to see that it is from 1970! I would have guessed somewhere in the 1940s or 1950s, but the 60s and 70s were a much more liberal period, at least from what I've read and heard. Would a 35-year-old unmarried man be described the same way? Or would he just be looking for the right one, or too busy and successful to be tied down.

The ad itself is pretty interesting also. Jan is shown in pictures throughout the years with a different man in every other picture, or her father (the only man in her life.) The title describes her as '35, single, and pschyo-neurotic,' while the pictures describe her as lonely, unworthy, and desperate. The lady in these pictures is out and about with the various men, while making domestic/family/happy memories with her father. And after describing her, we see that this drug can be given to women to relieve the neurotic sense of failure and anxiety, obviously put on by women in these conditions. Its aim is to treat patients with depression, apprehension, agitation, etc. and is implying - with this particular ad- that unfit, unmarried women experience all of the above. Women are not successful and independent, and the only goals the have are to be happily married and a future mother. And at a young age. With Valium, these misfits can feel just like all of married champions.

Valium

Ad

I think there are two disturbing parts of this article one is the marketing and the other is that they are suggesting valium to be given out for anxiety.

To specifically advertise valium to the "older" (yet only 35 year old), single woman is just pushing the stereotype that a woman has to be married by a certain age. It also seems that the manufacturers of the drug rare trying to get doctors to prescribe it for any single woman over the age of 35. I also cant imagine taking them advocating valium for anxiety seeing as it is a highly addictive drug.

Bed Wetter!

http://www.bonkersinstitute.org/medshow/kidbedwetting.html

I have so many issues with this ad. It pulled at my heartstrings, probably because of a personal history I don't feel like mentioning here. Unlike many of the other Bonker's Institute ads, the concept behind the ad's meaning still seams so prevalent, although the diagnosis for bed wetting has changed. Perhaps ads like this matter because they helped instill in our society this view that a child is "bad" when a child wets the bed, a sign that the embarrassment they feel stems from something other than a small bladder.

First, I'd like to know who the "physically normal older child" pertains to. No age is specified, but the little boy in the ad seems to be about 8 or 10 years old. What is the correct age when you need to stop wetting the bed? And aside from the "alleviations of psychic tensions" this ad has to description of what effect the drug actually has, or the mechanisms the drug uses. Also, this ad states that Equanil has a 68% success rate, but gives no mention of the plethora of side effects!

Secondly, is my child's occasional bed wetting a justification for tranquilizing him? I feel not, especially with side effects like rash, itching, easy bruising, bloody nose, unusual bleeding, tiny purple-colored skin spots, sore throat, fever, difficulty breathing, slurred speech and pounding/irregular heartbeat. But that's just me. Perhaps I just need to understand that some people have less control of their bladders than others, and that tranquilizing my 8 year old is pretty drastic when he probably just needs to not have anything to drink before going to bed.

1970 Valium Ad: "Women dominate his universe pyschic tension may rule his life"

I thought this 1970 Valium ad was particularly interesting because it is included in the 'women's issues' section of the website, although it is encouraging the dispensing of Valium to men. A quick look at the advertisement, however, highlights clearly why this ad is listed under the 'women's issues' section of the website--and it is because the women in this advertisement are literally causing the man's psychoneurotic symptoms. Like many of the advertisements on the website, this one appears to be directed at doctors and features a 'sociometrically dispersed' depiction of his relationships and illustrates that he is being dominated by women. The women in the ad certainly visually dominate the man -- they are much larger than he is and they form a circle around him that prevents him from socializing with other men. The ad states, "In this individual, domination by women has led to psychic tension."

I think this an interesting example of the kind of relationship Tone mentions between drug companies and therapists. Valium is seen as a potential "partner" to the "psychotherapeutic skills" of the doctor. This advertisement builds on the relationship established between medical professionals and pharmaceutical companies and is interesting because it is targeting a disorder that has already been sold--and trying to sell it in a new way.

Gender ideology has always been an important part of treating diseases of the mind (and the body) -- from dude ranches, to the rest cure, to "mother's little helper," medicine as a discipline has frequently reified existing gender norms. In this example, the overbearing mother is a cause of malaise--a common theme in mid-20th century medicine. Overbearing mothers have been blamed for homosexuality in the past (which I would argue is echoed int his advertisement because the man's wife looks like a drag queen) and for emotional crazymaking. In any event, relationships between men and their mothers run an acute risk of being unhealthy within this discourse. This is visually represented by the fact that the man's mother hovers over all the over figures in the "sociometric" depiction of his social life.

Mornidine

I was initially hesitant to blog about this advertisement for Mornidine because to be honest I thought it was too easy! It shows the illustration of a smiling woman in a long, baggy white blouse. She is standing in front of a stove and frying eggs and bacon on a skillet. On the other side of the stove sits a kettle. Above her the advertisement reads, "Now She Can Cook Breakfast Again," and below her, "…When You Prescribe New Mornidine." I ultimately decided that this add needs to be addressed. The main problem with the advertisement is who the drug is targeting as its potential costumers. It is not aimed at women, the people who would actually be taking the drug in question. Now, assuming that does not have any negative effects on the child, which I doubt but am willing to put aside for the sake of argument, I don't have any problem with the drug itself. Morning sickness can make one feel quite miserable and a drug that is capable of relieving such a state would be welcomed by many pregnant women. But this add isn't for them. It's for men. The illustration suggests that the problem with morning sickness isn't the morning sickness, it's the the fact that you as a white, middle-class, working male are no longer awaken by the heavenly fumes of bacon on the frying pan. But instead, imagine, you are now ripped from your dreams of golfing with the president and now have to deal with your wife puking her guts out all over the bathroom. How unattractive. THE BREAKFAST ISN'T THE PROBLEM HERE. The problem is supposed to be the medical issue that this medication is supposed to cure, isn't that right?
Another issue is the whole "when you prescribe her.." part. The "you" in question, the husband, can't prescribe anything unless you also happen to be her physician. The add assumes that the husband has the right to chose what is best for his wife, and that what kinds of medication she uses is up to him. It isn't. It is between the doctor and patient (now I fear that I'm beating a dead horse here, but just to be clear, the patient is the pregnant woman, not the hungry husband).
As strange as it sounds, this add is a good sign of where we are today. I thought this add was "too easy," because the problems with it seem so apparent to today's consumers (at least I hope that they do). Women are no longer breakfast machines, we're slowly making our way to being full-fledged, badge carrying human beings. That gives me comfort at least.

Cylert

1976 Cylert advertisement

Although I believe that medicine has come some ways since the days when we put cocaine in our beverages and used heroine to alleviate colds, I think that the belief that all our problems can be fixed with some magical pill still resonates today. Coming off of our debate Thursday, I think it that this strive for perfection through modern science is debilitating and especially dangerous when we strive for this perfection through our children.

The Cylert advertisement is a testament to this fact. If your child is not performing ideally in school or seems to be "hyperkinetic" then you can send him to the doctor, subject him to some tests that determines if he has some disorder called minimal brain dysfunction (MBD). Now if your child does indeed have this disorder, you can pop a pill of Cylert in your kids mouth before he runs off to school to control his impulsive behavior. Clinical studies show that children taking Cylert have improved scores on IQ scores, arithmetic, reading and other important tests that determine how close to perfection your child is. Your child may not sleep for three days and lose his appetite, but hey its worth it!

It should be noted that this advertisement did say that this medication is not for children who are just simply overactive, and has other underlying secondary environmental factors influencing his behavior.

The issue I take on this advertisement is my more than obvious stance on medicating children. There is a very fine line between hyperactive and and hyperkinetic child, if there even is one, and the inclusion of intelligence in the ad suggests that they inherently go hand in hand. To me this line of thought seems to be a bit fuzzy to me especially when we are dealing with a disorder with an etiology that is still being studied today. Our seeing devices are based on solely on how we think a hyperkinetic/hyperactive child appears to us. It is at times a socially construct disorder that is still present today with the epidemic of ADHD.

Although this article is dated this drug was still on the market until 2003 when it was withdrawn because of the "increased the risk of liver failure in children by almost 45 times," as reported by the FDA. As pointed out by the bonkers institute website, this medication was on the market for 30 years before being recalled. This just proves how imperfect we really are- I think the sooner people realize this fact the better.

“We don’t ‘Just say no’, we’re too busy sayin’ ‘Yeah!’”

Here is an ad for Metadate CD. From what I gather, it’s the same active chemical (methylphenidate) as Ritalin and has similar effects to those of Adderall (dextroamphetamine and amphetamine) and “street-grade” speed (methamphetamine). Aside from the substance the ad is pushing, the ad isn’t overtly offensive. As far as ads go, it seems pretty tame, even. What caught my eye was the part about this ad violating international law.

Here’s a copy of the cease-and-desist letter sent by the DEA to the manufacturer of Metadate.  It's not particularly threatening, despite the fact that the manufacturer is in clear violation of international law.  As indicated on the Bonkers Institute website, the Bush II administration didn’t seek prosecution.

Here’s a PSA by Partnership for a Drug-Free America, from the Bonkers Institute site.  Some of you may be too young to remember, but Partnership for a Drug-Free America are the same folks who brought you gems such as this and this.

I realize that anti-drug PSAs don’t necessarily come directly from the federal government, but the hypocrisy here is readily apparent. The inaction by the Bush II administration seems to say that there are good drug dealers and there are bad drug dealers, and the government gets to decide who’s who. The good ones have way more money and interest and lawyers on retainer than the bad ones, even though the products both of them are selling are remarkably similar. In other words, big pharmaceutical companies have permission to advertise and sell almost exactly the same thing that a Mexican drug cartel or a Nazi biker gang might be pushing. Not only that, but the product the big companies are producing is widely prescribed to school-age children.  

It also appears that we have yet another item with which to indict G.W. Bush and/or his cronies.

Thorazine: Because Time Is Money.

http://bonkersinstitute.org/medshow/thoraztime.html

The link above is an ad that was run by Thorazine (a brand of the anti-psychotic drug chlorpromazine) in 1957. The drug is used primarily to treat patients who have schizophrenia. However, if you look through the Thorazine section on Bonkers Institute you’ll see it was marketed as the solution to dozens of other conditions. These included alcoholism, anxiety, arthritis, asthma, aggression, agitated depression...and that’s just the A’s. It is almost as if the marketing team reviewed all of these ailments and found a way to link them to something that the drug could “fix”. For example, women in menopause are worried about aging, worry causes stress, stress causes anxiety…tranquilizers ease anxiety and therefore “cure” women in menopause (http://bonkersinstitute.org/medshow/thorazmenop.html).

When I saw this particular ad I had to re-read it a second time because I didn’t think it could possibly be real, but it most certainly is. It is a drug advertisement that poses as an official unbiased article. With "EXTRA" written in large bold letters across the top and a marketing claim that looks like a headline, it could easily be mistaken for an unpaid section of the publication it was run in. It is important to note that the ad was printed in Volume 8 of a medical journal called Mental Hospitals.

The "article" is about a new slow release capsule called Spansule ™ that will allow for fewer daily doses of Thorazine. The caption of the photo reads “Only one or two doses daily save time in busy hospital wards where three or four ‘dosage rounds’ were required’”. Thorazine was targeting medical professionals suggesting they use their drug, not because it was the best choice for the patients, but because it would be convenient and economical for the staff and institution. The fact that the drug had also been marketing itself for every condition under the sun helps cements the motivations of the drug company as purely for profit. It subtracts any concern for the patient or commitment to the safe and effective use of the drug from the equation.

Anti-Ritalin Clothing Line?

http://www.bonkersinstitute.org/medshow/ymca.html

I will probably be one of the only bloggers this week arguing on the side of medication, but this advertisement truly affected me. I have pasted the url above, but to describe it quickly, it’s a black and white picture of a youth basketball team with text above that reads, “Before video games, before Facebook, before Ritalin, there was basketball.” While I understand the intentions of this advertisement was not to be insulting, but rather to encourage healthy physical activity in a generation plagued with childhood obesity, I still could not help but be a little offended, and I was not the only one who felt this way. A message from the YMCA sates that within only one day of running the ad they received letters from hurt families dealing with attention disorder problems. These families viewed the ad as a rebuke of their struggles. Immediately the advertisement was discontinued.

The problem I see is that there is a stigma in existence today that anyone using medication to manage ADD or ADHD problems is in reality weak and if they would only channel their hyperactivity or attention deficit issues into something productive they wouldn’t need drugs. We can see this stigmatism in countless places. After just a couple minutes of googling I found anti Ritalin campaigns, anti Ritalin pamphlets, anti Ritalin facebook groups, and even a line of gifts and clothing that display some not so PC anti Ritalin sentiments like, “have you kissed your snot nosed Ritalin Junkie today” and “Imagination should never be medicated.” I’ll include the link to this so you can see for yourself: http://shop.cafepress.com/anti-ritalin

I realize that the number of prescriptions for attention disorders has dramatically risen recently, and much of America is genuinely overmedicated. Because of this I can understand where this stigma that “no one really needs Ritalin” comes from, but I can tell you from personal experience it simply is not true. While I myself may not have a prescription for any of these attention disorder drugs, for a year I lived very closely to someone who did. Her name was Hannah, and this adorable nine year old girl was developmentally delayed and took Ritalin daily. I very clearly remember the days when her overwhelmed mother forgot or was late medicating her. The difference between medicated Hannah and natural Hannah was like night and day. Within an hour she would go from pleasant, agreeable, and happy, to kicking, screaming, and miserable. Hannah needed these drugs. Without them she simply was not happy or well functioning.

What I’m ultimately trying to communicate is that for many, attention disorders are a true struggle and it very necessary to manage them with medication. Therefore advertisements, like the YMCA’s, can be offensive when they send messages that delegitimize these disorders.

There is always something wrong with your child.

In quite a few of the Ads on the website (bonkersinstutute.org), the promise of “curing” an over-active, misbehaving child is the focus. The Ads colorful descriptions of “problem” behavior in elementary school children would lead the reader to believe that there exists a pill that will transform their unruly offspring into, for all intents and purposes, a miniature adult. And as grotesque as the idea is that advertisers and drug manufacturers would suggest drugging children in order to make them behave, the reality of the situation is much worse: the convincing of adults that there is something seriously and medically amiss with their child, and therefore the behavior perfectly normal for a child is something deviant and abnormal and warrants medication and therapy.

The article titled “He Can’t Help It, He Has MBD,” (http://www.bonkersinstitute.org/medshow/kidhelp.html) paints an image of a disease so discreet, so well hidden, that it takes a professional to even notice its existence. The description of the dysfunction is so ambiguous and obscure it is a wonder the drug companies were even able to convince anybody of its existence. For example, in the paragraph of the advertisement describing this potential problem, the article says that although this problem, Minimal Brain Dysfunction or MBD, is the most common problem seen in children, “its existence is often unrecognized and its prevalence is almost always underestimated.” It sure seems as though this is something that, while most likely actually existing, is being blown way out of proportion in order to scare parents into medicating their children, or at least leading to false diagnosis.

The article goes on to continue to refute the idea that this problem does not exist, claiming “Because the child may function quite normally on a one-to-one basis . . . clinical impressions from a single office visit may be misleading.” The mere fact that the majority of this article is spent trying to remind the reader over and over that this is a REAL disease and your child most likely has should cause you to raise your eyebrows. The drug, as it says, doesn’t show any effects on about one third of the children who take it. Perhaps this is simply the number of children who don’t truly have anything wrong with them.

Children are over-active, hyper, easily distracted, and incredibly emotional. It is true that some children act out in these ways much more than others, but this does not inherently mean that there is something mentally wrong with them that needs to be fixed with some sort of drug. The headline explaining the article even says, “See the creation of a discrete disease entity before your very eyes! Before they could sell the drug, they had to sell the idea of the disease itself” which more or less sets the tone for the ridiculous medical explanation of this disease.

A “Purpose Driven Life” Children driven for the wrong purpose?

http://www.bonkersinstitute.org/medshow/kidhelp.html

Rick Warren’s 2002 spiritual guidance book title “The purpose driven life” speaks to the somatic contagion of what it means to ‘purposely’ direct behavior and your life toward meaningful goals. In this case spiritually; but not semantically off from the 1975 ad campaign for Cylert directed at medicating children with “minimal brain dysfunction” a.k.a hyperactive in the aims of directing these children to maintaining more purposeful behavior. Realizing now, that Mr. Warren, born in 1954 would have been subjected to the social contagion of what it meant to have purposeful behavior in his youth when add like this were being propagated around the social expectations of children. Maybe the success of his book was partially attached to the somatic contagion of what living purposefully semantically means to our society.

By categorizing purposeful behavior in code for normalcy, this add not only advertises the medication but also a definition of normal to society. It is hard to reject in the era the American Dream was realizing itself how any person would react to the suggestion that they or their children are not living purposefully and that intellect aside it is how you are acting that is making the social difference that will determine success. That is what this add claims. By creating the boundary of normalcy in behavior that need to be medicated in order to succeed to the likes of undirected, hyperactive, and disruptive along with countering it to definitions of the normal behavior of the attentive, well behaved, and organized child; adds like these allowed society to further claim the need for purpose. Just like warren’s book would suggest if you are not able to live your life purposefully then you are in the need of moral adjustment and spiritual overhaul.

The social acceptance of the importance of being normal and successful is now rooted in the American way by adds like these. Schools and the teachers that aid in teaching the social facts of life along with the ABC’s are key pedagogical institutions to normalizing, rewarding normal behavior that not only eases the teaching process but also adheres to socially constructed ways of acting. By being able to medicate these children to merely allow them to socially fit in in order to succeed in school and life we have added to the power of what the word purpose means and how we are supposed to integrate it into our behavior and our understanding of what normal is.

Shakespeare and anti-depression ads

http://www.bonkersinstitute.org/medshow/jackass.html

I can just hear my high school English teacher groaning at this ad for Cipramil, an anti-depressant that incorporates Shakespeare’s A Midsummer’s Dream into its ad. The man in the photo has the “head of an ass,” referencing the character of Tom Bottom from the play. “He got lost and fell asleep in the woods. Now he has the head of an ass and the queen of the fairies wants to marry him. The last thing he needs is more complications,” the ad states. Honestly, it took reading this a few times to understand what this was trying to say; probably because I’m too familiar with the Shakespeare play and was trying to figure out why, out of all the characters to pick from, they chose Bottom, who is possibly one of the least depressed and depressing characters from Shakespeare.

My offense at their lack of understanding towards English literature aside, the ad continues on: “Do you dream of an uncomplicated antidepressant? Chances are you're dreaming of Cipramil. It's effective, well tolerated and associated with a low risk of drug interactions. In other words, Cipramil helps to make treating depression or panic disorder less of a performance.” Oy, theater puns. Like Cipramil’s slogan, “Anti-depression not anti-patient,” this drug appeals to the simplicity of this treatment and the belief that it will not cause troubling side effects like other medications can (though reading about it on Wikipedia, it didn’t sound that much safer). The creators of this ad seem to present that curing depression is just s simple as taking a pill, and that all the drama the depressed victim is suffering now will be as gone as instantly as Bottom’s troubles at the end of Midsummer Night’s Dream. Troubling, considering that overcoming depression generally takes more than only medication. It’s interesting to me that the entire ad focuses on depression treatment, until the little blurb where panic disorder is added into the treatment options for Cipramil, as if panic disorder and depression were one and the same. In fact, using the man with the donkey head seems to reference anxiety more than depression, so it’s a bit weird that it’s not more prominently mentioned.

Of course, this ad makes a very basic assumption – that you will, in fact, know that the man with the donkey head refers to a play. This ad seems to be designed for a certain audience – one of a specific educational background, culture, and class. Yet I feel like the idea depression or anxiety has something to do with an ass-headed man could lead to some terrible miscommunications even among its target audience – or increase the stigma mental disorders have by associating a character in the midst of a freakish magical mishap with a depressed patient. Even understanding the reference doesn’t really help make much sense of this ad in my mind. It’s a rather strange strategy for trying to sell medication and makes me wonder how affective it was.

Zeldox = Tolstoy --- uhhhhhh, what?

I took up particular interest with this advertisement. The issue that I have with this advertisement is that the correlation given between the product and Tolstoy was so poorly done that it hurt. They are using the Tolstoy book as a signified to try and create a sort of relationship between his beliefs and the beliefs of their product. Even more interestingly, and immoral in my books, is the use of a quote at the bottom. The actual quote from the book is quite small and used out of context with the ad. Nevertheless, it is used as part of a small paragraph and is given the sense that the whole paragraph was taken directly from his book by putting his name at the bottom versus right after the small quotation. Not only that, but the quote wasn't taken from the book depicted in the image. Advertisers will often play around with signifiers/signifieds (amongst other techniques) in order to give meaning to their product but it was done so obviously and poorly in this example that I can't help but feel it has the opposite effect. The book in the ad is titled Peace in order to represent a desire that most people with Bipolar Disorder may have. Zeldox is hoping people will see this and go, "oh well Tolstoy said this and he was a pretty good guy. If he and this company share similar beliefs I bet their product is pretty darn good." I guess I'm the most upset by the manipulation of the quote in the paragraph under the image because it is really misleading.

Liar Liar Pants on Fire

So I would imagine that almost all of us have told a little white lie once in our lives? In some circumstances this is okay, and it usually do not harm anyone. There is a saying; what you don’t know, you are better of not knowing at all. But there are some people that tell more then just little white lies to get their way in life. We can call those people for compulsive liars.

A compulsive liar is defined as someone who lies out of habit. Lying is their normal and reflexive way of responding to questions. Compulsive liars bend the truth about everything, large and small. For a compulsive liar, telling the truth is very awkward and uncomfortable while lying feels right. Compulsive lying is usually thought to develop in early childhood, due to being placed in an environment where lying was necessary. For the most part, compulsive liars are not overly manipulative and cunning (unlike sociopaths), rather they simply lie out of habit - an automatic response which is hard to break and one that takes its toll on a relationship.
Read more at:
http://www.truthaboutdeception.com/lying-and-deception/confronting-a-partner/compulsive-lying/types-of-liars.html

The people that are compulsive liars are not only hard to figure out, but they are hard to be around. What is the truth and when are they actually lying, or is their whole life a lie. What do we do with people like this?
So my question is what makes people lie all the time? Can we blame this on that it is a disease? Should we use science to make a drug we can give to the compulsive liars so they stop lying? That would be easier than putting them in therapy and what not. There wouldn’t be any more liars out there if we had a drug that could solve this problem. Doctors have tested the brain of people who are compulsive liars and of people that are not.
“Pathological liar (compulsive liar) may have a slightly different brain than those people disposed to tell the truth. In the prefrontal cortex of the brain, pathological liars were shown to have 26% more white matter than do people with other psychological disorders who don’t lie. Previously, white matter has been linked to ability to lie. Lower amounts of white matter is typical in the brains of people with autism, who generally cannot lie, suggesting that more white matter disposes one to the increased ability to lie.” Read more at; http://www.wisegeek.com/how-is-pathological-lying-treated.htm
Since it has been tested and we almost can say it is a disease, I think we should come up with a drug for it, instead of a naturally treatment. It would be so much easier for the people that are compulsive liars and for the people around them. On my first link there are suggestions on how you could help people that are compulsive liars.

Eat me

http://www.bonkersinstitute.org/medshow/9poison.html

Paranoia!

What’s the best way to treat a patient who thinks you are lying, tricking, or drugging him? Lie and trick your way into drugging him!

This Stelazine ad suggests doctors “disguise the concentrate in liquids or solid foods.” This is suggested even if one just suspects a drug evader.
Where is the trust here? If part of the treatment is talk therapy, there is an expectation that, of all the suspicious people in the world, this doctor is one who is there for you. He needs to prove that your fears are exaggerated.

But trust goes both ways. Whether the treatment is voluntary or ordered, these doctors must live by a code of ethics. If a patient doesn’t understand his treatment, he can’t appreciate his own role in it. And what about the side effects? The patient has the right to know what side effects may result. The doctors can't expect they will see any that may present. And, I'm no schizophrenic, but if I started experiencing rash, blurred vision, dizziness and extrapyramidal symptoms, I might suspect I am being poisoned too.

Furthermore, what happens when the treatment works? Does the patient think he accomplished this on his own? How do you convince him to continue treatment without telling him he has been on it the whole time?

Finally, what message does this send for the public, especially those close to the patient? If the respected professional can’t grant your loved one the courtesy and respect of the truth, well, it’s okay for you to lie and patronize him as well. And if he is to continue treatment on an outpatient basis, don’t tell him you are giving him drugs! Distract him with a toy while the dog slips his pill into a treat. Good boy.

Atarax, 1970

 

“A problem child or a child with a problem?” That’s the hook that first grabs you in this ad for Atarax from 1970. The quotation is surrounded by snapshots of children, all of whom appear to be under the age of 10. There’s the troublemaker, the bed-wetter, the picky-eater, and the kid with the nervous stomach.

If these are all symptoms of being a child with a problem, I most definitely would have been on Atarax, had I grown up in 1970. My brother, as well. And my best friend. And my brother’s best friend. And the neighborhood kids we played with.  Actually, I believe that every kid under the age of 10 would have been on Atarax!

The problem children who appear in this ad have no real problems, nor are they suffering from any serious disorder, other than the disorder I like to call “being a child”. If kids are making trouble, it’s probably because they’re bored, have an active imagination, or (if you’re me) because an older sibling told them it was a good idea. If a child’s a picky eater, it’s because all kids are picky eaters and their parents most likely gave them a green food. A Bed-wetter? Well, if they’re anything like the child shown in the ad and under the age of 5, then they’re simply still getting the hang of not wetting the bed. Nervous stomach? Perhaps they’re actually sick.

Ads like these convince parents that their healthy, normal children have disorders, simply because they are participating in actions that kids are naturally prone to do. It demonstrates that any nuisance can be seen as a symptom to be fixed. In place of good parenting, one can give a child a pill. With that one swift action, all pestering attributes children naturally grow out of will instead disappear over night. Yet as the ad illustrates, there is no real disorder here. It is instead a pharmaceutical company attempting to fashion a disorder out of everyday child behavior. The only way to “cure” a 6 year old of a 6 year-old’s behavior is to have them turn 7. But the ad desires parents to think otherwise. 

The Mind, The Body, and The Twilight Zone.

Disclaimer: This post technically falls under Blog #4's prompt, with a response to #5 soon to follow...

If you have some time to spare, I suggest investing 20 mins or so of it into this episode of The Twilight Zone, "Number 12 Looks Just Like You".

Here's Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uR4PVVVe_Qk
(you can find parts 2 and 3 on the channel of the user that posted it if they aren't in the sidebar)

It was initially aired in 1964 and as usual, it is almost spooky how far ahead of it's time it was. We watched this episode in my Dress Society and Culture class, and discussed it in the context of the globalization of beauty and cultural ideals. However, what it made me think about the most was our discussions in 3331 and the Cartesian split. Even as we progressed into our study of tranquilizers the episode and the “glass of instant smile" came to mind.

The issues of beauty discussed here make sense for the time period because, as Carl Elliot wrote in his piece, this was just after things like hair color and cosmetics emerged in the 50's. It was around the time that products had overcome the "authenticity" obstacle and successfully branded themselves as "improvements" rather than disguises.

The main character in the episode is nearing her 18th birthday, a time when people in this society begin to prepare for their "transformation" into a beautiful person. She questions the procedure saying "Is that good? Being like everybody? Isn’t that the same as being nobody?” Throughout the entire episode her concept of individuality of appearance is inseparable from that of identity, self worth and humanity. I think it's interesting that the writers present it in this way, especially when we think about the Cartesian slit. It pokes at the question, how does how we look, change the way we think and feel about "the self".

I side with Descartes on this one. I don’t think simply looking like everyone else would make life not worth living as she so dramatically implies. This example makes the distinction very clear to me. Not having individuality of appearance does not mean you can’t have an identity, or individuality. But the episode does make me wonder, what would it be like to live in a world where there are no physical representations of our differences? I think it is interesting to think of how the body we inhabit can impact our mind directly in ways such as dehydration, but also indirectly through the way we experience it. Our body and physical appearance inevitably impacts the way we are treated by others; how does that shape our thoughts, behavior and ultimately our mind? How would we be different as people if we had grown up in a different shell? If the Twilight Zone is really on target for 2030 here, what would it be like to be surrounded by clones of Tom Cruz, Megan Fox and the Victoria's Secret Angles? I can only guess, maybe something like living in L.A...